MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985744284 · doi:10.3791/59812

Using Neuron Spiking Activity to Trigger Closed-Loop Stimuli in Neurophysiological Experiments

2019· article· en· W2985744284 on OpenAlexaff
Leonardo A. Molina, Victorita E. Ivan, Aaron J. Gruber, Artur Luczak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurophysiologyNeurosciencePremovement neuronal activityElectrophysiologyComputer scienceClosed loopOptogeneticsStimulationNeuronPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Closed-loop neurophysiological systems use patterns of neuronal activity to trigger stimuli, which in turn affect brain activity. Such closed-loop systems are already found in clinical applications, and are important tools for basic brain research. A particularly interesting recent development is the integration of closed-loop approaches with optogenetics, such that specific patterns of neuronal activity can trigger optical stimulation of selected neuronal groups. However, setting up an electrophysiological system for closed-loop experiments can be difficult. Here, a ready-to-apply Matlab code is provided for triggering stimuli based on the activity of single or multiple neurons. This sample code can be easily modified based on individual needs. For instance, it shows how to trigger sound stimuli and how to change it to trigger an external device connected to a PC serial port. The presented protocol is designed to work with a popular neuronal recording system for animal studies (Neuralynx). The implementation of closed-loop stimulation is demonstrated in an awake rat.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207